If God is God, Why. . . ?

a reply to: Noinden

The Bible is not based on old Stories it is an actual historical account of man, Israel, and the future of them both.

a reply to: whereislogic

I never said they factually went back 10,000 years that was someone else. I know that Historically they go back about 4890years. You can't carbon date clay tablets. So they take the evidence form other things that put the correct date on the clay tablets on which were written the Epic of Gilgamesh, to about 2,872BC give or take a hundred years or so.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Noinden

The Bible is not based on old Stories it is an actual historical account of man, Israel, and the future of them both.

Not even close. The bible (and every version of) is not a history book. To say it is is moronic.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: NoindenThe Bible is not based on old Stories it is an actual historical account of man, Israel, and the future of them both.

Not even close. The bible (and every version of) is not a history book. To say it is is moronic.

If you can prove that with nothing other than the AKJV, I will drink a beer.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: NoindenThe Bible is not based on old Stories it is an actual historical account of man, Israel, and the future of them both.

Not even close. The bible (and every version of) is not a history book. To say it is is moronic.

If you can prove that with nothing other than the AKJV, I will drink a beer.

That’s an even more moronic statement than the bible being a history book.

Here’s some of the errors your fairy tale has.

River Gihon could not possibly flow from Mesopotamia and encompass Ethiopia

The name Babel does not come from the Hebrew word 'balbal' or 'confuse' but from the babylonian 'babili' or 'gate of God' which is a translation of the original Sumerian name Ka-dimirra.

Ur was not a Chaldean city until 1000 years after Abraham.

Abraham pursued enemies to 'Dan'’, but that name was not used geographically until after the conquests.

Joseph tells Pharaoh he comes from the "land of the Hebrews". There was no such land until after the conquest under Joshua.

No Egyptian record exists mentioning Moses or his devastation of Egypt.

Law of Moses is the "statutes of God and his laws" is almost an identical copy of the Code of Hammurabi, which was penned 1800 BC, hundreds of years before Moses.

Jericho and Ai were both ancient ruins at the time of the conquest of Canaan, according to archaeologists. Jericho's walls were destroyed centuries before Joshua.

Kings are referred to at Deut 17:17-19, before Israel had kings.

David paid 600 shekels of gold for the threshing floor. But shekels of gold were not yet used in business transactions.

Defeat of Sennacherib did not happen at Jerusalem, but at Pelusium, near Egypt, and Jews were not involved, contrary to 2 Kings 19.

That’s just some (a very small amount) of the MANY historical and geographical errors in your book.

a reply to: whereislogic

There are no actual records of ancient man, his writing, agriculture, and other pursuits, extending into the past before 4026 B.C.E., the date of Adam’s creation.

There are no records of the preexisting civilizations before the creation of Adam [by those preexisting civilizations] but there are some records of their existing prior to Adam by this civilization. We can see this in the Ethiopian bible and the books of Enoch. I realize that most all mainstream religions will not accept Enoch as Christian literature today but in the past 1st synagogue of James the books of Enoch as well as some other literature were accepted and taught to their congregation by the apostles and the teachers of Torah.

Later ChesterJohn said: the Sumerian Kings list only supposedly goes back ten thousand years and that because they counted a life of one king to the next end to end. Maybe I read that wrong but it seems somewhat inconsistent with what that wikipage mentions: None of the following predynastic antediluvian rulers have been verified as historical by archaeological excavations, epigraphical inscriptions or otherwise. While there is no evidence they ever reigned as such, the Sumerians purported them to have lived ... before the great deluge. Ruler: Length of Reign Alulium: 8 sars (28,800 years) The first ruler or king listed there already exceeds the "ten thousand years" ChesterJohn mentioned (so not sure what he was talking about there, can't have been about the ones we have archeological evidence for either, since the oldest one dates back to "2600 BC" according to wiki). Anyway, there's no evidence that this* is anything more than mythology and early political propaganda, a "political tool" as wikipedia calls it (nowadays, in politics or marketing a

Wikipedia is not always a reliable complete source so we all should consider other sources of academia before accepting any teachings. A good example is my opinion of course and not simply stated as fact. I have mixed academia with biblical [KJV bible] as well as some accepted NASA science.

NASA accepts that this world is about 4.5 billion years old. At the beginning of the 4.5 billion years, the earth (world) rotated upon its axis at the speed of three hours per revolution and the moon completed its course of five hours. This means, to me, that in comparison to our understanding today, the earth rotated about eight times faster than it does today and the moon rotated about 5 to 6 times faster 4.5 billion years ago as compared to today. This gives us an idea of a day but not a year.

The year is believed to be a much more complicated estimate than the day was, The year is believed to be on comparison as to what the moon tells us which is about 6 to 7 times faster but also that a year was counted as from one equinox to another equinox. In other words there were not two equinox’s counted as we understand today but only one equinox was counted as a year.

Now this could be attributed to 4.5 billion years ago but as the antediluvian time proceeded we have no idea of the rotations at any point in this 4.5 billion years. What was the rate of rotation in the days of the angelic host when they were cast to this earth? I have no idea. Was a year one equinox instead of two equinox’s? I have no proof or idea as to how to determine this.

Perhaps Chester has more insight on this than most of us have. I can’t say. The Cuneiform tablet tells us that the kings came down from heaven. According to the KJV bible the angelic host was cast down from the celestial heaven or abode of the Creator and I believe that these same angels are the kings of the Kings List who governed themselves for thousands of years. I also believe that time was counted far different in this era of the kings then it is counted today.

The Sumerian cuneiform then tells us that five cities and eight kings ruled for 385,200 years – Then the flood swept over. This flood is where I believe we see the renewal of this earth and the Genesis account as “In The Beginning.” [beginning of the human race]. This is when the angelic host who were cast out of heaven were then were cast into Sheol and the renewed earth was given to the created Adam.

Understand that this is only me talking. Could it be that the biblical time be fitted into this scheme of mine? Don’t know. What other explanation is there for a Sumerian Kings List clay cuneiform that science can verify part of but not all of? It is possible that Chester has more information than we have and that it was indeed about 10,000 years.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Nice try. You can of course prove all that right? Its not just some shared gnosis you are wavind around, like a todler who's discovered they are male are you?

Quite simply. Your holy book is by definition a collection of fables, myths, and perhaps legends. It is not a recording of historical matters. For one it contradicts itself over Jesus. It also has a number of different versions, of differing lengths, your prefered version, is a shortened version.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Again you can prove that right? You can prove that every single story in the old and new testament is factually correct?

a reply to: Noinden

Again you can prove that right? You can prove that every single story in the old and new testament is factually correct?

Noinden, that is very unfair and you know better than that. When we discuss the bibles of both Hebrew and Greek it should be understood that we are in theology and not any other realm of debate. Proof is in some historical events of both Hebrew and Greek bibles to some extant but not in all events. Why? Simply because cultures die, wars destroy evidence, and translators are as biased as are so called historians.

To add to that is to say that we have not one original draft [autograph] of any existing bible or its literature. The spiritual aspects are subject to theology and have never been said to be proven. All religions are centrally by faith and are in the theological realm even though some events have moved out of theology and into acceptance.

Embellishment is the greatest problem and it can be presented in many forms. The most common is to debate only a portion of the subject matter and present a totally biased and incomplete portion in a debate. Picking verses is the most common form of embellishment. Even then it is not complete because we do not have the authors work to debate or the authors intent. It is all theology.

a reply to: Seede
No its not unfair. If someone states that (for example) their preferred bible is the "preserved word of God" and that bible is say the King James Bible. A heavily edited book, that has gotten to today, via several languages, and removal of books with in it. One can either state that "this is what I believe" and thus be honest. OR they can state that that book is historically true,. and back that up. Otherwise its posturing.

So no its is not unfair.

To claim that the bible is anything more than myth and legend, is to open it to being investigated. The thing is, the new testament has been shown to be internally inconsistent, and not hitsorically true, and that can be applied to much of the old testament too.

I don't claim my faith, or the myths and legends from it are historically accurate. That would be missing the point. The myths and legends teach lessons, and connect you to the Gods. That is the point.

So nah not unfair.

a reply to: Noinden

No its not unfair. If someone states that (for example) their preferred bible is the "preserved word of God" and that bible is say the King James Bible. A heavily edited book, that has gotten to today, via several languages, and removal of books with in it. One can either state that "this is what I believe" and thus be honest. OR they can state that that book is historically true,. and back that up. Otherwise its posturing.

You say that the King James Bible is a heavily edited book, that has gotten to today, via several languages, and removal of books with in it. One can either state that "this is what I believe" and thus be honest. OR they can state that that book is historically true,. and back that up. Otherwise its posturing.

Firstly, as I have shown, there is no bible existing that is provably historically true. It is impossible that a bible can be proven to be 100 % historically true. There are many events in the KJV bible that are historically true but not all events are provable in the KJV or any other version. The Christian NT is accepted by faith in the many authors of the literature just as any religion offers.

Even if you could show the original letters and books of the OT and NT, you could not prove that any of those two are 100 % accurate or for that matter any literature is 100 % accurate. It simply is not true.

Quote
First, the facts... The King James Bible contains 791,328 words. Since the first King James Bible rolled off the press in 1611 to the King James Bible you buy off the shelf today, there have been - are you ready - there have been a grand total of 421 word changes! That's it!

From 1611 until now, the King James Bible has undergone a grand total of 421 word changes, amounting to only five one-hundredths of a percent of the text! But that's not all. It gets better. Out of the 421 total changes amounting to only five one-hundredths of a percent, the following should be noted -

TOWARDS has been changed to TOWARD 14 times.
BURNT has been changed to BURNED 31 times.
AMONGST has been changed to AMONG 36 times.
LIFT has been changed to LIFTED 51 times.
YOU has been changed to YE 82 times.

Out of a grand total of 421 changes from 1611 to the present, almost 300 of the 421 are of this exact nature! Now let’s do the math... By omitting changes of this nature, we now have about 150 (to be conservative) remaining changes. This amounts to one one-hundredth of a percent of the text. The remaining 150 changes from 1611 to today are composed of printing errors, spelling standardization, and a few minor phrase changes. For example...
In Genesis 22:7 AND WOOD was changed to AND THE WOOD.
In Leviticus 11:3 CHEWETH CUD was changed to CHEWETH THE CUD.
In Romans 6:12 REIGN THEREFORE was changed to THEREFORE REIGN.

Friends, this is the ENTIRE extent of the nature of the changes from the King James Bible of 1611 to the King James Bible of the present day. Indeed, the words of the Holy Ghost are very appropriate here - “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” Psalm 12:6 - The question now arises, how then can Daniel Wallace and other enemies of God’s Word make a statement like the one he made above? If there have been only 421 changes from 1611 until today, how can Wallace et al say that there have been 100,000 changes? It’s very simple, and yet very insidious, my friends. Here is how Wallace et al attempt to justify their deception...

You see, the King James Bible you buy off the shelf today is printed in the ROMAN TYPE FACE! The King James Bible of 1611 was printed in the GOTHIC TYPE FACE!

VIOLA!!! [sic]

There you have it, friends. Changes in TYPE FACE are the “changes” that Wallace et al are referring to. And yet, Wallace clearly intended his reader to believe that the King James Bible of 1611 is significantly different than the King James of today.

As usual, however, the facts don’t bear the critics out. The facts condemn the critics and expose their smoke-and-mirror shell game. Deceit is the only thing modern critics can traffic in, for the facts are so overwhelmingly against them that they have no other means by which to denigrate the Word of God.

Conclusion: the FACT is that the King James Bible you buy off the shelf today is VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL to the King James Bible of 1611.
Unquote

Source - bible.org...

a reply to: Seede

You seem to be mistaking who is having the discussion you objected too.

Myself and ChesterJohn.

He has made oblique statements over the "preserved word of God" (tm) (R) etc. He stated that it is historically accurate.

Thus I challenged him to prove it.

That is where this begins and ends.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
If God is God and he has a plan why not just make it all perfect and have done with it?

Simple answer, because the word "perfect" and "very good" as it relates to the creation does not equal being impervious to sin or iniquity, otherwise the world wouldn't be in the mess that its in now. The only thing in existence that is impervious to sin is God. It was true before anything was made, is true now, and will be true in the new heaven and earth to come. What is different for us now is the blood atonement of Jesus Christ. He truly changes everything, because it is by his sacrifice that sin was put away on the cross. He is the only reason why God "will remember our sins no more", and so too will we no longer remember our own sins.

(Isaiah 65:17-19) "¶ For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. [18] But be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy. [19] And I will rejoice in Jerusalem, and joy in my people: and the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, nor the voice of crying."

(Revelation 21:1-4) "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. [2] And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. [3] And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. [4] And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."

(Isaiah 43:10-11) "Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. [11] I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

Neither shall there be after God, meaning this statement doesn't suddenly become null and void on the day that everything is made new.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

The name Babel does not come from the Hebrew word 'balbal' or 'confuse' but from the babylonian 'babili' or 'gate of God' which is a translation of the original Sumerian name Ka-dimirra.

(Baʹbel) [Confusion]. The name is derived from the verb ba·lalʹ, meaning “confuse.” Local citizens, thinking of their city as God’s seat of government, claimed that the name was compounded from Bab (Gate) and ilu (God), signifying “Gate of God.”

And it's called propaganda. What you're saying sounds like what an ancient Babylonian government official or local citizen might say. The Hebrew name Baʹbel as it's used in the bible has a clear etymology and meaning in Hebrew. Sumerian (Babylonian) propagandistic claims or thinking about their city as God's seat of government, do not have the power to change the meaning or etymology of Hebrew words as they are used in the bible when referring to that city.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: whereislogic

I never said they factually went back 10,000 years that was someone else.

Then I perhaps still don't understand this line of yours:

...the Sumerian Kings list only supposedly goes back ten thousand years and that because they counted a life of one king to the next end to end.

I did notice the "supposedly" so I never thought you said "they factually went back 10,000 years" so not sure why you bring that up in response to my comment. It sounds to me you're saying it's the Sumerian Kings list itself that claims kings going back "only...ten thousand years", but I don't see that either from the overviews of that list as can be found on wiki for example (the first king already reigning longer than 28,000 years). Seede was in the right ballpark with "hundreds of thousands of years", at least according to this list of (partly mythological) kings (allthough as wiki mentions, it's a bit tricky with the overlaps regarding the ending of your quote above). Allthough the way he said it sounded a bit like he was talking about the age of the Sumerian Kings list itself, not the dynasties described in it, the latter to me was obvious that that was what he intended to refer to (especially with the "if true" remark and context of his comment).

I have no idea who this "someone else" is that is saying "they factually went back 10,000 years" (assuming you're talking about the dynasties or reigns listed in the list with "they"). Can't be Seede, he was talking about "hundreds of thousands of years" and I didn't notice anyone else talking about the subject here. And since it's clear you're not talking about the age of "the single attested version" of the Sumerian Kings list (quoting wikipedia) itself, where does this whole 10,000 years number come from anyway?

a reply to: whereislogic

How many points did you get from your cult for that post? Better be worth it, as it’s completely wrong.

That’s what happens when you get told what to think, like a good little cult member.

a reply to: Noinden

You seem to be mistaking who is having the discussion you objected too. Myself and ChesterJohn.

No, I am not mistaken in that this is an open forum and my post was in regards to your claims that the KJV bible was heavily edited. I believe you have difficulty in knowing the difference between theology and the secular claptrap that is being broadcast in our universities. If you object to other opinions then you should refrain from an open forum.

a reply to: Seede

Nah you are missing the point. I asked someone who has repeatedly said "it is the preserved word of god" and now "historically accurate" to prove it. Thus its a fair question from me.

I don't object, I'm just not going to engage in this with you, unless you are going to actually you know adress the point I asked.

Answering a question (not asked to you) with another question is rude.

a reply to: Noinden

Chester posted-------- The Bible is not based on old Stories it is an actual historical account of man, Israel, and the future of them both.

Noinden answered
I asked someone who has repeatedly said "it is the preserved word of god" and now "historically accurate" to prove it. Thus its a fair question from me. I don't object, I'm just not going to engage in this with you, unless you are going to actually you know adress the point I asked.

I do not read where Chester posted that the bible is historically accurate. What he did post is that the KJV bible is a historical account and in that I agree. The KJB is a historical account of both Israel and other people. Complete or accurate? No, it it not complete and in being not complete it cannot be completely accurate. How could anyone know that? Proof? Doesn't exist in theology. Preserved word of God? Absolutely, it has not changed since the first copy off the press.

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Noinden

Chester posted-------- The Bible is not based on old Stories it is an actual historical account of man, Israel, and the future of them both.

Noinden answered
I asked someone who has repeatedly said "it is the preserved word of god" and now "historically accurate" to prove it. Thus its a fair question from me. I don't object, I'm just not going to engage in this with you, unless you are going to actually you know adress the point I asked.

...The KJB... Absolutely, it has not changed since the first copy off the press.

Actually, there are differences between the very first edition of the KJV and later editions. It has changed since the first copy of the press. This video mentions how you can tell if you've got a first edition KJV or not (at 1:20):

It is unlikely that ChesterJohn has or uses a very first edition of the KJV, they are quite rare compared to later editions. Wikipedia mentions on the page for the KJV:

In the United States, the "1611 translation" (actually editions following the standard text of 1769, see below) is generally known as the King James Version today.
...
Standard text of 1769

By the mid-18th century the wide variation in the various modernized printed texts of the Authorized Version, combined with the notorious accumulation of misprints, had reached the proportion of a scandal, and the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge both sought to produce an updated standard text. ... They undertook the mammoth task of standardizing the wide variation in punctuation and spelling of the original, making many thousands of minor changes to the text. ... Like the 1611 edition, the 1769 Oxford edition included the Apocrypha, although Blayney tended to remove cross-references to the Books of the Apocrypha from the margins of their Old and New Testaments wherever these had been provided by the original translators. Altogether, the standardization of spelling and punctuation caused Blayney's 1769 text to differ from the 1611 text in around 24,000 places.[103] Since that date, a few further changes have been introduced to the Oxford standard text.
...
For a period, Cambridge continued to issue Bibles using the Parris text, but the market demand for absolute standardization was now such that they eventually adapted Blayney's work, but omitted some of the idiosyncratic Oxford spellings. By the mid-19th century, almost all printings of the Authorized Version were derived from the 1769 Oxford text – increasingly without Blayney's variant notes and cross references, and commonly excluding the Apocrypha.

For some reason wikipedia only mentions word changes such as "not" to "no" in the one comparison they make between a text in the 1611 edition and Oxford's 1769 edition. But there are more (like the "he" vs "she" example in the video). That's not merely a change in spelling or punctuation. Either way, they are all changes compared to the first edition in 1611. What ChesterJohn is referring to as the AKJV is not "the 1611 translation" as wikipedia calls it, even though it is perceived or presented by some as such including those that wikipedia is quoting there when it says "the 1611 translation". The inclusion of the Apocrypha in the earlier editions of the KJV is a rather big change or difference already; rather significant as well in spite of the downplaying attempts by those who argue like the King James Only movement.